nwnfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Use magic device
2da info Perhaps I'm wrong but isn't the skillvsitemcost.2da used to determine which items can be used with a certain UMD rank? Also the table looks very wrong. For example with just 1 rank (and CHA 10) you can use most low level spell scrolls (up to a value of 1000 gold). Since the article was changed just a few hours before I don't want to change it back without a discussion. --Kamiryn 23:05, 9 January 2006 (PST) * I've added a few notes though the table is the same as it was before, so *shrugs* I couldn't find a skillvsitems.2da but the itemvalue.2da has a very similar table.GhostNWN 00:35, 10 January 2006 (PST) :* As far as I know the itemvalue.2da is used for item restriction by level checks, it's not used for UMD checks. Yes, I saw the older version had the wrong table as well. I can make the necessary corrections once I'm at home again.--Kamiryn 03:19, 10 January 2006 (PST) ::* Nice fix for the table. I only fixed the style before... guess I should have checked the content too. Oh well. Nice job. ^_^ --Countess Terra 10:40, 10 January 2006 (PST) UMD vs. tumble I changed the notes because it didn't seem right to compare the primary use of UMD (using items) to the secondary use of Tumble (the AC boost). And the reference to ranks was incorrect. --The Krit 03:13, 5 February 2006 (PST) Shadowdancer and UMD I don't understand how a level of shadowdancer has anything to do with the UMD scroll check since shadowdancer doesn't get UMD. Could someone explain how the shadowdancer class fits into the UMD check "picture"? Tx. --Iconclast 05:13, April 15, 2010 (UTC) * It's quite simple in a way. Line 93 of the script x2_pc_check checks to see if the PC in question can not use UMD, is not a rogue, is not an assassin, and is not a shadowdancer. Passing that check means the game skips the UMD skill check. A better question would be why shadowdancers are included in this check. Probably because whoever wrote that script was not being careful with the rules and was just thinking how rogues, assassins, and shadowdancers have this nice synergy thing going. --The Krit 06:09, April 15, 2010 (UTC) :* Yeah. I'm quite challenged searching out the actual dynamics in script so just assumed that it must have been programmed by the designers to work that way. It was more the logic that escaped me why a class without UMD was included, which has now been enlightened. You have put my mind at ease... again. ;) --Iconclast 14:10, April 15, 2010 (UTC) ::* Keep in mind that this is the same game that for years required 4 fighter levels to take weapon specialization — unless you wanted to specialize in clubs, in which case 1 fighter level was sufficient. The same game that for years required weapon focus to get epic weapon focus — unless you wanted to focus in the club, in which case improved critical was required. The same game that.... well, if you need more convincing that the game has always been riddled with bugs, just take a look at the patch notes. The 1.69 notes alone list 31 general fixes, and that does not include text and .2da changes. ;) --The Krit 21:42, April 15, 2010 (UTC) Figuring UMD cut-off for the cut-off values of the various UMD levels, are the scores in the table the required ranks in UMD, or are they the required adjusted die rolls? e.g., if a character has a 14 CHA would s/he still need 5 ranks to use a 4800gp item, or would 2 ranks be sufficient (ranks) + 2 (cha) + 1 (minimum roll on a d20) = 5 ? 00:01, November 13, 2011 (UTC) *yes various bonuses to UMD counts for this purpose but there is no roll only bonuses vs skill breakpoint, however if you are playing multiplayer and you count on bonus from spell or bard song, then you might get disallowed to join into game if you log out if the server has ILR ON, as these bonuses can expire. Base charisma score and skill bonuses from items should count even when logging in. --ShaDoOoW 00:27, November 13, 2011 (UTC) * The scores in the table are the required scores. The article should mention that there is no die roll. --The Krit 04:47, November 13, 2011 (UTC) Table headings The table headings on this page are unreadable. It is showing as black text on a black background for me. I tried editing, but I don't have enough experience myself to fix the problem. Leaving this here in case someone with more experience checks this page. 15:06, July 26, 2012 (UTC) * Right. It looks like Wikia is messing with things (again). :( I'll see what changed. --The Krit (talk) 16:57, July 26, 2012 (UTC) * I'm going to hold off on fixing this for now, so that the Wikia folks can see what they've done to us. (It affects many, many tables in this wiki.) However, if they cannot or will not fix it in the next day or so, I'll implement a wiki-wide fix. --The Krit (talk) 17:23, July 26, 2012 (UTC) * The official reply: "We are aware of the issue and are looking into solutions." For at least two weeks, apparently. (This is part of the software upgrade that has been going on all month.) So I am not expecting any help from Wikia. Time to fix it locally. --The Krit (talk) 22:55, July 27, 2012 (UTC) * OK fixed for nnow. (Was that so hard, Wikia? It would have taken me longer to go through that "help" page I was directed to.) It might take some doing to clear the various caches, but once you get the new style sheet, the table headings will be back to how they were. Now I get to decide if it's worth the hassle of making a deeper fix with the goal of preventing this from happeneing again. --The Krit (talk) 23:11, July 27, 2012 (UTC) Add the level to the table? i think it would be handy to have the level cut-offs from itemvalue.2da as a column in the table. what say ye? 07:01, January 13, 2013 (UTC) * You mean the item level restriction levels? The biggest problem I see with that is that the correspondence between the cut-offs is not good. (About half the rows in the UMD table fall between rows in the ILR table.) The result could end up being confusing or awkward. --The Krit (talk) 19:56, January 13, 2013 (UTC) Scroll check and spell level You must make a DC check of 25 + the level of the spell to cast a spell from a scroll if the difficulty mode of the game is set to Hardcore or higher. Is the spell level referred to in the description the innate spell level? TIA --Iconclast (talk) 23:02, July 10, 2014 (UTC) * What is used is the spell level defined in des_crft_spells.2da. This is pretty much the innate level with the difference that greater shadow conjuration and polymorph self will use the innate level of the master spell, and war cry uses a spell level of 3 (although there is no standard scroll of war cry). WhiZard (talk) 00:57, July 11, 2014 (UTC) :* What about divine spell scrolls? Can all those be cast successfully without a check triggering? I am assuming a condition where no cleric, druid, ranger or paladin levels have been incorporated into the build. TIA for clarification. --Iconclast (talk) 15:01, December 1, 2014 (UTC) ::* All scrolls apply- divine and arcane. WhiZard (talk) 16:02, December 1, 2014 (UTC) :::* Then perhaps the second note should be reworded to reflect that fact. In its current state it assumes only arcane classes can avoid the scroll check but they can't for divine scrolls, and vice versa with divine casters. Some distinction should be made if qualifying classes are going to listed in regards to UMD checks. No? --Iconclast (talk) 16:21, December 1, 2014 (UTC) ::::* No arcane classes avoid the scripted check (assuming the scroll is usable) for divine and arcane scrolls. Divine classes will have the check whether the scroll is arcane or divine. For example, a cleric multiclassed with assassin, shadowdancer, or rogue will need to make a scripted UMD check for scrolls restricted to clerics (because the scripting thinks the scroll is being cast through UMD even though the hard-code knows better). A bard needs only the UMD to use a scroll, and he can cast any scroll without the scripted check. WhiZard (talk) 22:34, December 1, 2014 (UTC) :::::* Hmmm. I would have never figured it worked like that so thanks for the clarification and example, WhiZard. Seems buggy to me, but I guess BW had some reason for making the distinction else it just slipped through the patching cracks somehow. Okie doke.-- 23:14, December 1, 2014 (UTC)